9 Dec 2005


See also: IRC log


Doyle_Saylor, Shadi, Justin_Thorp, Jack, Bingham, Judy, Henk, George_Heake, pasquale, Tanguy




<scribe> Scribe: Justin

<Harvey> Harvey hasn't had time to give feedback on other group's work.

Judy: It is one of EO's responsibilities to look at the education and outreach aspect of the guidelines.
... I want to wrap up our comments by next week.

Outreach Updates

Group: None

Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 2.0 Draft

the draft - http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/

i looked at it as well

Judy: General Impressions?

Doyle: seems a little bit cleaner and a little easier to consume

Judy: Last time looked at it?

Doyle: Last time we did it in EO

George: More concise and easier to read and more acceptable to a wider audience

Judy: Understanding Doc reaction?

Henk: i didn't have a chance to read everything but I what I read I thought if I wasn't familiar with it, I wouldn't know what I was reading

1.1.1 For non-text content that is used to convey information, text alternatives identify the non-text content and convey the same information. For multimedia, provide a text-alternative that identifies the multimedia. For live audio-only and live video-only, conform to success criterion 1.1.5. (Level 1)

Judy: In past we sent a ton of comments
... Seems like they have addressed most of them.

<Judy> Here's the WD: http://www.w3.org/TR/2005/WD-WCAG20-20051123/

<Judy> Here were our previous EOWG comments: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2005Jun/0003

Judy: Let's read the abstract
... when you read the abstract, can you tell whats the business end of the guidelines, what's the part to which you conform?

Harvey: Conformance isn't mentioned.

Judy: I think they are trying to do it in the second paragraph.

<Judy> What about: "The success criteria are the part one has to conform to, to meet the guidelines."

Judy: I think they should in more plain language say the success criteria are what you have to be following


Jack: No link between conformance and success criteria

Judy: Status Section
... The status section changes with each draft

Jack: Seemed very boilerplate

Justin: What are we supposed to see in the status?

Judy: I had a navigational issue.

Henk: There is also a request for comments.
... in the status section. Should it be in this section?

Judy: This is usually where we put this.

Justin: I can't even find easily what the status of the document.

Henk: First reaction was how now can I continue.
... Next would help.

Judy: Someone has to know the terrain in order to use the document.

Justin: I had some general navigational and interaction issues.

Judy: The Introduction

<Judy> jb clarification: But people shouldn't have to know it all in advance...


Judy: What are people's comments?

Harvey: "User interface components in the content must be operable by each user." ?

Judy: More friendly, like can be operated by each user?

Henk: Isn't operable understandable?

<Harvey> Operability seems to be Jargon

George: Fairly...generic and fairly standard

Judy: Seems this intro is much much clearer

<Harvey> 2. Each interface component must be easily controlled by the user.

Judy: doesn't cover standard usability recommendations
... where they say WCAG 2.0 includes....should that be highlighted as different, because of it's unique role in the document.

Henk: I think not.

Judy: "Only this document is normative" ??

Harvey: Glossary link for normative.

Justin: Where is the checklist? It's not in the intro.

<Harvey> There is no mention of "checklist" in this document

<Harvey> Checklist is not in the glossary either

Harvey: It needs clarification.
... Normative has a formal definition which people need to know about.
... It has a standard meeting.

Henk: Do we need to explain it here?

Judy: In the glossary it is required for conformance.

<Harvey> The normative requirements show up in the guidelines:

<Judy> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2005Jun/0003

Judy: When you add a glossary link, it adds a emphasis that this is important to pay attention to.

Justin: in related docs, there are two docs that are from WAI site that look different, they have a different user experience

Harvey: Put it on an indirect document.

Justin: Would that give it a layer of removal?

Judy: Maybe say apart from the guidelines

Henk: more distinction would help
... I don't think the first two links should be bold.

Judy: I think that would help me
... how is this procedure for comments going?

George: This is giving us some good bullet points

Henk: I think this helps us know where to read for next week.

Judy: Conformance Section
... they have changed this a lot.

Jack: As a new person, I would say what does this mean?

Pasquale: There are some guidelines that have no level 3 success criteria.

Henk: Some guidelines don't contain all success criterion levels

judy: each level...every level
... for who is this very clear?

Henk: For a new reader user, of course it is hard...you will understand it don't the way.
... I don't see how to make it easier simpler.

Harvey: I think it is a good start.

<Harvey> I think this is an effective introduction

Judy: A lot of the comments are that is has improved.
... A lot of people aren't familiar with a conformance sections.
... This is not the same as regular intro material.

<Harvey> Informative documents: As these are often augmented, I suggest a minimal summary here, and a link to where they are found.

Judy: Maybe this needs to be in a different section, why conformance is important and why it is complex
... After intro, put the more complex stuff in

yes that made sense

Henk: I think a new section on conformance would be great.

George: I think this would be a great idea.

<Harvey> Judy: "she comes, she goes!"

Judy: Conformance requirements seems a little barried.
... In the past we had commented on this

Justin: In conformance claims, delivery units doesn't make sense.

Judy: I agree
... The Guidelines
... Is the navigation better? apparently not...


Justin: You don't know if your going to individual pages or if your going to one long thing with an anchor.

4.1 is very confusing


Judy: There is a history with this checkpoint
... The How to Meet for 4.1.1 is confusing.
... Glossary Section
... We have our own glossary that we are working on. We should take a good look at the glossary.

<pasquale> me too

Judy: Henk, can you take a good look at collisions with our glossary

Henk: Yes

<Harvey> I've minimal time to do any more in the next few weeks.

Summary of Action Items

[End of minutes]

Minutes formatted by David Booth's scribe.perl version 1.127 (CVS log)
$Date: 2005/12/09 15:30:21 $

Scribe.perl diagnostic output

[Delete this section before finalizing the minutes.]
This is scribe.perl Revision: 1.127  of Date: 2005/08/16 15:12:03  
Check for newer version at http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/

Guessing input format: RRSAgent_Text_Format (score 1.00)

Succeeded: s/round/way/
Succeeded: s/?//
Succeeded: s/Justin/Judy/
Found Scribe: Justin
Inferring ScribeNick: Justin
Default Present: Doyle_Saylor, Shadi, Justin_Thorp, Jack, Bingham, Judy, Henk, George_Heake, pasquale, Tanguy
Present: Doyle_Saylor Shadi Justin_Thorp Jack Bingham Judy Henk George_Heake pasquale Tanguy
Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-eo/2005OctDec/0110.html
Got date from IRC log name: 9 Dec 2005
Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2005/12/09-eo-minutes.html
People with action items: 

WARNING: Input appears to use implicit continuation lines.
You may need the "-implicitContinuations" option.

[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]